Apologists’ Dread: Truth may be Unpalatable

[coberst]

Apologists’ Dread: Truth may be Unpalatable

 

The superficial student of social theory “is compelled by the very logic of his inquiry to become its apologist. Even if he were critical of his society, his very level of investigation condemns him to becoming its apologist…because the surface of society is ideologically constituted, so that whoever remains confined to it can do little more than reproduce the underlying ideology.”

 

All accepted social theory becomes ideologically constituted because society in general becomes its apologist. Society in general becomes an apologist for a social theory because that society, which has never been taught critical thinking, is unable to comprehend matter beyond the appearance of reality.

 

The inquiring mind requires a philosophical attitude if it is to illuminate that which is beneath the surface of social reality. I claim that ‘CT (Critical Thinking) is philosophy lite’ is a useful and accurate metaphor for the student of social reality. CT is the first step toward facing and conquering the “apologists’ dread”.

 

I think that Marx would say that ideology is a set of ideas to which a group of individuals place great trust. Within this group of individuals most will become apologists for this ideology because most members have never been taught to think critically. Thus every set of ideas to which many are drawn will become an ideology. An ideology then is a set of ideas that is very popular and which is forcefully promoted by a large number of apologists. Thus the ideology is enforced by force.

 

The difference in being a critical thinker or an apologist is that the critical thinker is conscious of his or her fallibility and is conscious of the assumptions that are part of the set of ideas making up that particular domain of belief.

 

The critical thinker recognizes the tendency to be biased and can remain rational about his or her set of beliefs. The Christian or the Muslim who remains a critical thinker rather than an apologist can keep the set of beliefs while maintaining a balanced view of that domain of knowledge and how that domain of belief fits into a society in harmony.

 

“Strange as it may seem, Marx’s concept of apologia bears a remarkable resemblance to, and can be best understood in the context of the traditional discussion of the nature and task of philosophy.”

 

Philosophy is, as a philosophy professor said to me when I asked him what philosophy was about, a radically critical self-consciousness form of inquiry. Philosophy is the only domain of knowledge that has the attitude and discipline required to critically question its assumptions. All domains of knowledge start with assumptions and if these assumptions are challenged then the whole domain of theoretically defined knowledge loses its theoretical rational and legitimacy.

 

Pull away the foundational assumptions of any domain of knowledge and the edifice crumbles without it.

 

A system of knowledge is inherently limited and distorted by its assumptions. Because of these assumptions it abstracts certain aspects of reality and conceptualizes the subject matter in a highly selective manner in accordance with the assumptions. The physicist restricts her focus to matters that can be quantified in terms of weight, time, distance, and perhaps wavelength.

 

“Each form of inquiry operates within the framework of and the limits set by its basic assumptions, and offer an inherently inadequate account f the world.” Since non-philosophical inquiry is not aware off or able to question its assumptions “they have a constant tendency to claim universal validity and transgress into areas not their own.”

 

The author argues that “the assumptions underlying and constituting a point of view may be not only methodological, ontological, and epistemological, but also social…To be a member of a society is to occupy a prestructured social space and to find one self already related to others in a certain manner.”

 

An ideology is systematically biased by its assumptions and it constantly must protect its assumptions from erosion if it is to maintain the status of its ideology. For Marx the ideologist becomes a constant apologist for his ideology. An uncritical or vulgar social theorist, even though personally very critical of the established order cannot overcome the social osmosis resulting from the society and is unable to realize his critical intentions.

 

Quotes from “Marx’s Theory of Ideology” by Bhikhu Parekh.

[Essay]

The difference in being a critical thinker or an apologist is that the critical thinker is conscious of his or her fallibility and is conscious of the assumptions that are part of the set of ideas making up that particular domain of belief.

 

Thanks very much for expanding on the apologist's perspective.

 

~ :)

 

p.s. Love your "confined to the surface" image; that adds a whole new dimension to viewing social development!